Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in the Land of the Soviets/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 12 February 2011.

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently been heavily added to with referenced information, using the main texts on the subject, and was thus upgraded to B quality. A peer review followed, with most of the suggestions being implemented. I believe that it is now ready to become a featured article, and could not be further improved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: There's a problem with non-free use rationales here. The images feature a generic rationale saying that the use of the image is "To illustrate an article discussing this very comic book." Rationales are there to explain specifically what the image is showing and why that needs to be shown in the article- there really is no automatic entitlement for use of images of this sort. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've sorted this problem out with proper rationales now. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Comments
 * Too many of the sentences begin with continuous verbs; looking at the second paragraph of the plot summary alone: "Subsequently meeting... Defeating... Being... Falling... Stealing... Being". It makes for repetitive reading, so please audit throughout the article.
 * I think I've sorted this problem now. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Infobox: was there really a creative team when only one person created the comic? I understand that this is coded into the template, so you might need to ask WP:COMICS about what to do.
 * I wonder if the plot is not too long and detailed. The Watchmen FA, for instance, has a five-paragraph plot summary for a series of 12 comic books. Every single adventure Tintin experiences needn't be described here...
 * I've sorted this problem out now, cut it down to three paragraphs. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC))


 * A lot of overlinking—banana skin (!), boy scout, patriotism, comic strip, cinema, and the names of major cities and countries. Please audit throughout.
 * I've sorted this particular problem out. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Are you sure Harry Thompson is a Tintinologist? Nothing in his Wiki article suggests so.
 * Absolutely, after all he wrote one of the defining English-language books on the subject, and was interviewed on the documentary Tintin et Moi. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC))


 * The last sentence of the article is uneferenced.
 * Could you uploader bigger versions of the latter 3 images, they are difficult to appreciate at this tiny size. File:TintinSoviets.jpg, on the other hand, probably needs to reduced per WP:NFCC #3b.
 * They latter three that you mentioned were originally larger, and had to be reduced down to size to fit in with Wikipedia regulations.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Once this is done, I'll try to find time for a copy-edit and detailed content review.—indopug (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know there's no set standard for formatting references, but using smallcaps for the authors' names looks weird...

Disambig/External Link check - no dead external links. 2 dabs- Snowy and The General (film). -- Pres N  01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Snowy (character) and The General (1926 film) are now correctly linked. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Sources review
 * Refs 1 and 22: Did Hergé publish these words in a book or article? If so, they should be cited directly to this source. If not, they can be quoted direct to the Thompson source.
 * Ref 28: I imagine this source is in French; this should be noted.
 * Capitalisation of names in the bibliography is a stylistic oddity; why do this?

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Spotchecking not possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to your first point, the Hergé quotes would have been originally published in French (where and when I don't know, unfortunately I only speak/read English), and Thompson has translated them into English. So in that case I have directed straight to the Thompson source as per your suggestion. I have also noted that reference 28 is in French, and the capitalisation was simply a preference of mine, I thought that it made the names of the authors stand out, and just felt that it was aesthetically pleasing. Others may disagree with that of course. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Comments
 * Shouldn't use contractions except in quotes
 * French title in lead and infobox are slightly different, should be consistent
 * Sorted. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Make sure you consistently include the accent on "Vingtième"
 * Sorted. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Needs some copy-editing for grammar, flow and clarity
 * Check for consistent and correct hyphen use
 * Check the accuracy of your quotes - for example, you have the same quote about the election scene from Moscou sans voiles twice, but one version has a spelling error that the other lacks
 * Sorted. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Is Peeters 1988 or 1989? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorted; it's 1989. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

Oppose Comment. I propose to put detailed comments on the FAC talk page instead of this page, per this thread. If you'd prefer me to leave the comments here, just say so and I'll move them back. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments (not yet complete) are now on the nomination talk page. Mike Christie (talk – library) 05:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've completed my review and am leaning oppose based on prose, overuse of quotations, and some unnecessary fair use images. I am also concerned by Ruhrfisch's oppose below but have not made any attempt to look through sources myself yet. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reluctant Oppose by Ruhrfisch I am opposing on the basis of FA criteria 1a (it does not seem that well-written) and more importantly 1b and 1d (comprehensiveness and neutrality). The article does not have a separate section on Reception or Critical responses, and the little critical material that is there is pretty pro-Tintin. Just looking up the title on Google Books I found several books that were much more critical of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets. For example "The metamorphoses of Tintin, or, Tintin for adults" by Jean-Marie Apostolidès, Jocelyn Hoy says (pp. 33 and 34) that the evolution of Tintin is often missed because of changes in the reprints of the later works and that Tintin in the Land of the Soviets "would beconsidered irredeemable from the postwar standpoint. The adventure was simply eliminated from the 'Complete Works' and for a long time was out of print." The book goes on to show how Herge' recycled scenes and gags from this book in other, later Tintin adventures. Or this book "The media and the making of history" By John Theobald spends at least 8 pages analyzing the book in the context of its time, the post-WWII era, and the Cold War, and looks in detail at how it fits with five main themes found in Western anti-Soviet propaganda. These are not only comprehensiveness issues (or lack thereof), but to me seem to be WP:NPOV issues too. Even the one external link given lists translations into 13 other languages (in additon to the French and English which are the only two versions discussed here - the Theobald book mentions some of these too). If I can find this much missing stuff in a few minutes with Google, it does not speak well of the article's comprehensiveness, and it seems that sources more negatively critical of the work could also be included. Sorry, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.